I agree that scripts are covered seperately. I disagree that 1.1 is more
fundamental, but that's philosophy that only needs to be considered if we
disagree.
Chaals
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Jason White wrote:
Interesting minutes.
A quick suggestion: move "scripts" out of checkpoint 1.1. They are
covered by checkpoint 4.4. The result is that an implementor can
choose whether or not to provide an alternative to scripts, and
therefore decide to comply (or not to comply) with checkpoint 4.4,
without being regarded as having failed checkpoint 1.1, which everyone
agrees is a much more fundamental requirement.
I would also like to have a summary, after the meeting, of the
proposals which are put forward.
Wishing you much success at the meeting,
Jason.
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)